Why Pogue, Mossberg & Swisher Are Leaving the NYT & WSJ, Part II

With the imminent shift by David Pogue (The New York Times), Walt Mossberg (Wall St. Journal/AllThingsD) and Kara Swisher (AllThingsD) to new ventures, I had some additional thoughts about the significance of those moves.

Mike Maney, who tweets at the_spinmd, responded to my first blog post  on the topic, saying, "Not sure I'd say lots of people still open their paper to read. Which is the core of the 'why' IMO" that Pogue, Mossberg and Swisher are leaving.

I agree but I think people do check out the Times and the Journal on their apps and from those papers' websites. Soon, after checking the headlines on nytimes.com and wsj.com, people are going to have to remember to click to the other URLs to find out what Pogue and Mossberg think about the latest cosnumerish technology.

Of course a click or two, especially if bookmarked, is not an arduous, time-consumer process (not like it was with dial-up service -- for those old enough to remember dial-up). But we leave in a one-click world where requiring a couple of clicks to purchase an item may cause people to give up.  (I can't imagine what my grandmother would react if she she had learned that a couple of clicks represent too much of an obstacle to purchase, considering she had to take buses to get to the store to buy something only after trying it on, and then travel back again when she returned the item.)

I do think Pogue, Mossberg and Swisher are replaceable in a way -- I mean, we all are, after all. But I do think it will be more difficult for their replacements to establish themselves just as it will take a while for Pogue, Mossberg and Swisher (I'm not going to refer to them by an acronym).

As it is, one can make a case that the tech reporters getting a lot of attention these days are not the tech reviewers but those who cover startups. That said, consumer tech reviewers will always be important because we need someone to tell us which device is better -- the iPhone or the Galaxy.

No matter what, I think the continuing fragmentation of the media is a lose-lose proposition for reporters, these publications and the readers. 

This fragmentation makes it more challenging to reach a mass audience. It takes more effort to reach more reporters, who themselves reach smaller audiences. (These audiences may be more engaged than traditional print newspaper readers, but they're still harder to reach.) It takes more time to research and contact reporters...which means we need to spend more time overall to reach fewer people at a time. It's pretty much a similar story with social media, too. Don't get me wrong, you've got to reach people on different platforms -- Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Google+, blogs, and forums, etc. -- but it can take more time to reach increasingly niche audiences.

That, I believe, is the point to keep in mind in terms of the implications for Pogue, Mossberg, Swisher and the rest of us.

Why are Pogue, Mossberg & Swisher Leaving the NYT & WSJ?

Following the recent news that Walt Mossberg and Kara Swisher at AllThingsD will be leaving after 11 years to start a new technology writing and conference business, David Pogue announced that he's leaving the New York Times after 13 years. Pogue will be joining a new consumer technology site at Yahoo.

There are some reports/rumors that Mossberg and Swisher were pushed out of the Wall St. Journal, which has also announced it will expand "the Journal's technology coverage and conference franchise, including the addition of 20 editorial staff. (By the way, Mossberg has worked at the Journal for far longer than 11 years -- the 11 years is based on the launch of AllThingsD.) Mossberg and Swisher's contract runs through Dec. 31, 2013, and they have said that they will launch a new business as of Jan. 1, 2014.

What's interesting is this: regardless of whether Mossberg and Swisher were pushed out, they will launch a new platform. (Hard to imagine that they'll be able to launch a competing business while still writing for the Journal but I have every confidence that they will be successful). And regardless to how Pogue is leaving (there have been grumblings regarding conflicts of interest in terms of reviewing Apple technology when he also has had publishing contracts for how-to books on those same products), these departures raise a couple of interesting questions:

• All three are hardworking, knowledgeable and have incredible industry connections -- but how much of their success has been the result of the platform they've had for the last decade? In other words, were they the top of the industry because they worked at the New York Times and Wall St. Journal or were they working at the NYT and WSJ because they are the best reporters out there? (Again, I've worked with them over the years, and have always read their columns and articles -- and they are terrific reporters and reviewers.)
• How important are they to their respective tech sections? Based on my experience, lots of people open their Thursday editions to read the latest reviews from Mossberg and Pogue. So, will readers still turn to the Thursday tech sections as avidly as they did until now? I'm betting that there will be a fall-off because I think readers respect Mossberg and Pogue and because they've built up credibility over the past decade-plus.
• Will their new endeavors keep them at the pinnacle of the industry? I think Mossberg and Swisher definitely will maintain their ranks -- because of the conference business. Pogue has hinted at more than blog posts, reviews and video -- but launching a successful conference is tough. Mossberg and Swisher have done it and should be able to do so again. The question is whether Pogue, who is also busy serving as technology correspondent for “CBS News Sunday Morning,” columnist for Scientific American and the host of a series on technology on the PBS program “Nova,” has the time and inclination to build a conference business. That said, by keeping his position with CBS News Sunday Morning, Pogue will also maintain his position at the top of the field.
• That said, while I know online is usurping print, I still wonder if their new online platforms Yahoo for Pogue and To-Be-Named-Later for Mossberg and Swisher, will attract as much attention/traffic as the NYTimes.com or WSJ.com?
• For Mossberg and Swisher, will their new site provide subscriber-only access -- a paywall to generate revenue even before generating advertising revenue? With Pogue, the established Yahoo! platform indicates his new site would be free -- but still leaves open the question: how does it become self-sustaining?. 

However this plays out, it's clear that reporters these days can find new ways to monetize their reviews and articles beyond print newspapers. But the further fragmentation of the media makes developing an audience that much more challenging for Mossberg, Swisher and Pogue -- and that much more challenging for those of us who follow and pitch them.

Let me know what you think.

Democracy and the iPad

At the All Things D Conference, Walt Mossberg interviewed Steve Jobs about the iPad.

Jobs talks about the development and use of the iPad, and mobile advertising, too.

But what I thought interesting was his take on democracy:

One of my beliefs very strongly is that any democracy depends on a free, healthy press, and so when I think of the most important journalistic endeavors in this country, I think of things like the Washington Post, the New York Times, The Wall Street Journal and publications like that, and we all know what's happened to the economics of those businesses. I don't want to see us descend into a nation of bloggers. Anything that we can do to help the news-gathering organizations find new ways of expression so that they can afford to keep their news-gathering and editorial operations intact, I'm all for.

Check out the interview, "The iPad: Past, Present, Future; Apple's Steve Jobs on where the PC is heading."

2010 Predictions, 1 through 12

Each year, Birnbach Communications compiles an annual list of media trends for our clients, helping them to work more effectively with the media, both at traditional and online outlets, including blogs and social networking sites. Here's a list of some of our top trends in one place, to make it easier to review them all; let us know if you agree or disagree with what we've said.

• Traditional print journalism will continue to be important. Even as the resources allocated to practicing it diminish -- fewer print newspapers, fewer reporters at those print papers, and less space in those papers -- yet traditional journalism conducted by newspapers will continue to drive content across the web. A 2009 study by the Project for Excellence in Journalism found though there are a lot more places to find news online, "of the stories that did contain new information, nearly all, 95 percent, came from old media -- most of them newspapers." In other words, most of the news articles found online basically picked up content from traditional sources, like newspapers, adding some commentary, but not new facts.
• Print newspapers and magazines will continue to struggle in 2010, and more will consider shutting down or transitioning to online-only, despite a (slower than we'd like) recovering economy. Although the number of magazines that shut down peaked in 2008, at 525, last year said goodbye to 360 magazines, including some major magazines like Gourmet, Metropolitan Home, Fortune Small Business. Last year also saw the deaths of major daily newspapers like the Rocky Mountain News and Seattle Post-Intelligencer as well as dozens of smaller papers. Large newspaper companies also announced bankruptcies last year, and we expect more closings in 2010. There is some good news: advertising pages may be increasing, according to Q1 projections, but only by 3 percent. However, print subscriptions continue to decline, and we expect newsroom layoffs to continue. The lesson: magazines from big publishing companies and significant circulations were not immune. Already, BusinessWeek SmallBiz announced (via postcard) that its Dec. 09/Jan. 10 issue was its last.
• 2010 will be the year of online subscriptions as publishers of all kinds are finding out that advertising-only-supported sites are not self-sustaining. Charging user fees will allow these sites to survive. The implications include:
  

• Getting the price for online subscriptions will be important. After all, Newsday.com spent millions to redesign its site to put a pay-wall so it could charge readers $5.00 per week for access. In three months, Newsday.com generated only 35 subscribers. In contrast, the Wall St. Journal charges less than $100 for online access, with a discount for print subscribers.
• Publishers will consider a number of different plans, ranging from a pay-wall which enables only paid subscribers to access content; a metered system that allows readers to sample a few articles before being asked to subscribe; premium access, in which many articles are free but more important ones are available only to paid subscribers; and a membership model like public radio.
• One problem will be that, despite new subscription platforms from a variety of companies, from startups like Journalism Online (run by Steven Brill) to potential solutions from News Corp., Google, Microsoft and IBM. The challenge: if some publications don't charge, people will gravitate to those free services.
• Online-only news outlets won't be immune to layoffs. They will find out cutting out printing and distribution costs isn't enough to be self-sustaining because they've given up a number of substantial revenue streams, too.
• Online subscriptions won't limited to online news content. Twitter will unveil a business model that will likely be focused on charging fees to businesses that use Twitter. Rupert Murdoch, who is an ardent advocate of charging for online content, and owns a percentage of Hulu.com, will push Hulu.com to offer its video library on a per-viewing and on an unlimited basis. The same goes for some streaming music sites that currently are available for free.
• Apple's iPad may make it easier for print newspapers to charge subscription fees for online access. A lot of print media are designing new layouts to take advantage of future tablet offerings.

• Mobile access on hand-held devices like the iPad, netbooks, and increasingly powerful app phones, will become increasingly important in 2010. Content will need to be platform-agnostic, including audio and video, developed to meet the demands of several key platforms (and not just the iPad and iPhone). It's not just newspaper publishers who need to think cross-platform; it's all businesses, whether they're trying to reach consumers or B2B customers.
• Top business and technology stories in 2010 are likely to include the following topics, though not necessarily in this order:

The economy, including the recovery, the housing market, auto industry and the "new normal."

The freelancing of the US workforce -- or how we'll all be contractors or "perma-temps" in the future (especially given the jobless nature of the recovery).

Apple's iPad and the future of mobile computing and Apple's iPads vs. cellphones vs. Kindle and other e-readers.

Cloud computing and virtualization -- and yes, we know: they're not the same thing.

Health care reform.

Regulations.

Google vs. Apple vs. Microsoft and EMC vs. HP vs. Oracle.

3-D TVs.

The state of the media, especially print media, online-only business models and online subscriptions.

Twitter's business model.

Location-based services and behavioral targeting by advertisers.

Online privacy as social media, behavioral targeting, location-based services and hackers combine to make it easy for others to access personal information.

This is not to exclude the other topics we've included in our 2010 predictions.

• In-flight Internet access will take off: We will see more in-flight Internet access in 2010 – by 2011; it won’t even be something airlines tout as another reason to fly with them. Lufthansa rolled out new service: web surfing from 30,000 ft at $3/min. (What does it cost for tech support?) We can expect more conference calls and emails, and flying cross country no longer means being unable to respond to email. But battery life, additional sockets, and headphones will be boom businesses. The rise of business videoconference calls may increase the noise level, but not to the point of requiring talking and no-talking sections. As with other aspects of high-speed Internet access, though the Internet was established in the U.S. , count on international airlines to be ahead of domestic airlines in the type of services offered travelers. (Coffee, Tea or Internet Access?)
• Video may have killed the radio star but radio will continue to survive -- for now. But in two years, we may not be making the same prediction. Today's kids do not listen to radio as much as previous generations did. They listen to iPods, and soon, iPads. We believe that radio continues to be important, especially during drive-time commutes. We think record companies should continue to support radio stations because people still first hear new songs on radio and then decide to download songs (or buy CDs, if they're boomers) based on what they hear on the radio. But because today's children are not getting in the habit of listening to radio, and because today's homes are less likely to have radios other than as part of a stereo system, radio stations are going to need to find ways to reach and cultivate new listeners. That's where record companies can come in, to their mutual benefit. Of course, radio may survive during increasingly long commute times since more states have enacted laws that prohibit texting while driving or require drivers to use hands-free technology when using their cellphones.
• The decline and fall of TV networks...won't happen in 2010, but networks are definitely on the decline. Case in point: "The Jay Leno Show" vs. "The Tonight Show with Conan O'Brien." In the end, NBC has been shedding viewers, and no change of hosts or programs may bring them back. It's not as though those viewers were sticking around for drama at 10 p.m. on other networks. Most likely they were turning to cable programs or on-demand offerings, TiVo, Hulu.com or the Internet.
• Social media platforms will survive the recovery. Some critics have said that Twitter and Facebook did well during the downturn because people had available time, either because they had less to do or because they had lost their jobs. People will continue to use Twitter, Facebook and other social media services but they might not be updating their pages quite as often. Social media sites will consider rolling out new ways for users to post and engage via multimedia (audio and video).
• Live integrated real-time interactive multimedia web events, which combine live video, and offering the ability to post and read comments on Twitter and Facebook windows, will become more common in 2010. Last year, Bill Cosby conducted the first-ever interactive townhall to introduce Cosnarati, a socially conscious hip hop group that he produces (http://www.ustream.tv/billcosby), offering a live videostream with a real-time Q&A function and the ability to post comments on Twitter and Facebook. The event gave users a number of ways to interact with Cosby, and could offer a solution for network TV -- if they can find a way to make money off it.
• The intersection of social media and traditional journalism will be increasingly busy. For example, while the Super Bowl continues to be the biggest non-holiday event for which Americans gather together, and while people comment on the ads as much as the games, advertisers themselves are looking beyond the ads, often offering websites with extended versions of some ads, driving viewers to their sites. Another example: Olympic sponsors are changing their approach this year -- rather than having social media simply an add-on to advertising and their PR activities- they are embracing it/integrating it.
• Online credibility will continue to be important, but new FTC rules requiring bloggers to disclose the receipt of free samples, gifts and cash payments will get confusing because many who don't blog are not required to make similar disclosures. Currently, tech reviewers at newspapers get free samples but don't need to disclose that fact (though Walt Mossberg and others do…on their websites and blogs). Theater reviewers often get free tickets while many freelance travel writers get all their travel "comped." Yet the FTC does not require these folks to disclose gifts unless they're bloggers. We actually think it makes sense to disclose any type of relationship with an organization being discussed because credibility is important for bloggers and non-bloggers. While it's good to see a government agency understand the need to keep pace with technology, we need clearer rules that ensure equal footing so that reviewers disclose relationships whether or not their work appears on a blog or in print.

Prediction #12: Online Credibility Will Continue To Be Important,

Online credibility will continue to be important, but new FTC rules requiring bloggers to disclose the receipt of free samples, gifts and cash payments will get confusing because many who don't blog are not required to make similar disclosures. Currently, tech reviewers at newspapers get free samples but don't need to disclose that fact (though Walt Mossberg and others do…on their websites and blogs). Theater reviewers often get free tickets while many freelance travel writers get all their travel "comped." Yet the FTC does not require these folks to disclose gifts unless they're bloggers. We actually think it makes sense to disclose any type of relationship with an organization being discussed because credibility is important for bloggers and non-bloggers. While it's good to see a government agency understand the need to keep pace with technology, we need clearer rules that ensure equal footing so that reviewers disclose relationships whether or not their work appears on a blog or in print.

Walt Mossberg, David Pogue & the State of Consumer Tech Reviews

Providing consumer technology reviews is a difficult job.

I say this not to suck up to consumer tech reviewers, but to acknowledge that they really do face significant challenges that include:

• Conducting daily triage on products that are relevant to consumers. There's a lot of new gadgets and technology, especially around Christmas and CES, and most of them may be worthy while still not worthy of reviewing.
  
• They have to sort through claims that products are "revolutionary," "paradigm-shifting," etc. when perhaps they're not all that.
• If the technology is truly revolutionary, it may be of interest only to very early adopters, not mainstream consumers. (In 1975, the Altair 8800 was the first microcomputer -- but the PC didn't catch on until years later.)
• They have to translate geeky features and terminology that only engineers care about into language that consumers can understand.
  
• There are a lot of cross-over products that work for consumers and small businesses, but most consumer tech reviewers really only look at consumer technology -- which doesn't stop publicists handling SMB technology to call and complain to them.
• There's a lot of useful technology out there, like utility software. But reviews of utility software don't sell papers like reviews of the latest mega-pixel camera, smartphone, etc. -- which doesn't stop publicists handling utility software to call and complain to them.
• They get advanced look at buggy software, gadgets with glitches, etc. You know how frustrating it is when your own technology doesn't work as advertised. These folks are on the front line for that, so think how frustrating their jobs can be -- though, of course, when they have a problem, they get priority tech support from the company.
  

Point made? A difficult job.

Recently, there's been talk about the New York Times' David Pogue and potential conflicts of interest. As a long-time reader of Pogue's column and email newsletter, I think he's a pretty straight shooter. But I think he should do a better job of disclosing potential conflicts of interest. His credibility is important for the success of his column, which is important for all his side endeavors. There's no reason he'd jeopardize the credibility of his Times column, but, again, better disclosure would help.

The latest contretemps involves Walt Mossberg and his review of Windows 7. The complaint: that Mossberg wrote a glowing review of the now-reviled Vista, and used almost verbatim copy to describe Window 7. (Check out the complaint here.)

Seems to me some of the problems Pogue had also entailed his reviews of Win 7 and also of Snow Leopard, Apple's operating system. I know operating systems are important -- it's the reason I've waited to replace my aging computer until Win7 became available, and didn't replace it earlier in the year when I should have but would have had to deal with Vista. So maybe that's the problem: people take operating systems very seriously, and are therefore much more critical of reviewers who praise faulty OSes.

On the other hand, I say, give Mossberg and Pogue a break. There used to be lots of tech reviewers out there, every paper had at least one for a while. Now there are far fewer of them. So ask them to make more disclosures and to voluntarily follow the same rules the FTC will be applying Dec. 1 to bloggers in terms of receiving free products, and let's move on.

New York Times Urges Truth in Online, Offline Advertising

Pointing out that marketing to consumer-generated (i.e., blogs) and social networking sites (Facebook, MySpace but not, as yet, Twitter) is expected to grow 20 percent in 2009, up from $1.01 billion in 2008 (which had increased 25% from 2007), the New York Times believes that "a lot of it is paid advertising masquerading as bona fide endorsements by celebrities, well-known bloggers and even ordinary people — honest comment, free from pecuniary considerations."

According to the Times, "In 1968, an F.T.C. advisory demanded that advertorials disclose that they were advertising, not editorial...The rules offline should clearly apply online. This is a matter of principle, not medium, and the new rules are not an excessive burden."

I certainly agree with that.

The Times also urges the FTC to "focus enforcement on the advertising companies," not the bloggers."

The Times also feels that "advertisers are the drivers of this new trend. The onus should be on them to ensure that blogs pitching their stuff warn readers about the commercial motivation of the endorsements."

As a blogger, I'm not sure I totally agree with that last point. I have urged clients to work with credible bloggers, who disclose potential conflicts of interest. But as a PR executive, I know we have little control over bloggers, and would not want to be held responsible for them. That said, we're just providing information or trial software for reviews. We're not engaging in some of the problem issues that the Times rightly cites (such false testimonials).

It's not clear from the Times' editorial whether its editorial board understands how bloggers work.

At the same time, we do provide trial software for product reviews to print reporters. I think there needs to be a disclosure page for tech reviewers to let everyone know their policies. The Journal has a code of conduct that's easily found, but you can check it out here. Kara Swisher, a former Journal reporter who now works for All Things D, posts her ethics policies here. And Walt Mossberg posts his ethics policy below his bio here.

I think more online and offline reporters and bloggers should post codes of conduct. Now, I don't review or endorse products here, but I have posted in my bio that if I do mention clients, I will always disclose that fact. And I do so here and on Twitter.

Bloggers Need to Disclose Payment or Receipt of Free Products

The FTC is mandating an important change for bloggers. Starting Dec. 1, bloggers will have to disclose if they received free products or payment or other considerations from advertisers. The FTC will also be looking at celebrities plugging products or services on talk shows and on social media platforms like Twitter.

There are some who don't like the rule change. Their arguement is that giving free product to a blogger doesn't mean you control what the blogger posts (as is the case with advertising or paying a spokesperson).

That's certainly a valid point: you can't control what bloggers will post. Just as you can't control what a reporter will say.

However, I think it's a good idea for bloggers to disclose their policies. Walt Mossberg of the Wall St. Journal does. I think it be helpful for readers to understand the nature of the relationship.

That's been a recent issue with New York Times' David Pogue, who in addition to his weekly column, also writes books and lectures on the side about some of the same topics/items he reviews.

I think companies should be able to distribute free copies to enable reporters, reviewers and bloggers to review their software. But I also think it a good idea for them to disclose that they've gotten these products for free -- and what they do afterwards. Credibility (or transparency) is important, and this will help everyone involved.

For example, Mossberg discloses that he deletes software he hasn't paid for or pays for it if he wants to keep it. Either way, at the level of a Mossberg or Pogue, free software is not going to influence how they cover a product. It shouldn't for bloggers, either. Now as consumers, we will have a better idea, too.

As marketers, we've told clients to be wary of bloggers who don't disclose the receipt of free product. Again, this shoudl enhance the credibilty of what otherwise might seem like the Wild West.

Good WSJ article on Twitter

WSJ's Katherine Behret, who works with Walt Mossberg, wrote a good article about Twitter, "Birds of a Feather Twitter Together: Social-Networking Service Connects Followers, Not Friends, on PCs and Mobile Phones." It's a good introduction to Twitter, if you're not already familiar.